Nope, We don’t have a convention about the Type Schema. And this is in the very early stages, so still have things to come. Open an issue if you find it necessary.
leave like this. If it don’t work, open a bug issue.
As far I know you only loose the expand all functionality if the mutation itself doesn’t have the <dgraph.type> specified and also doesn’t have a related type in the Type Schema.
Hello there, @michaelcompton,
do you know if a plan exist for supporting the Union type with Dgraph Graphql ?
Here is the response I got from the dgraph server when trying to give a schema with an union type :
"message": "couldn't rewrite mutation updateGQLSchema because input:1: You can't add union definitions. Only type, interface and enums are allowed in initial schema.\n",
"extensions": {
"code": "Error"
}
dgraph version: v20.03.0
ps: I had to add space after the union type definition in the schema otherwise it trow a parsing error.
We can’t use Apollo Federation with Dgraph GraphQL if Dgraph doesn’t support Union types alongside standard GraphQL hopefully native support for GraphQL makes its way into release soon.